1. Title, director and release year?
Title: The Corporation
Director: Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott
Release Year: 2003
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The main argument of the film is those corporations negatively affect your life in various ways.
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
The information is given by a series of interviews going from professionals in academic fields, economists, business executives, and, my personal favorite, the corporation “spy”.
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational?
Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?
This movie encompasses all of the topics above. This is accomplished by being very long, but also focused in the interviews. Obviously, the editor should get some sort of prize.
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I think that the most compelling part of the film, and I believe that the makers of the film agree with the amount of time focused on this single topic, was the milk scandal at fox news. Having the “inside scoop” with the reporters involved was a rare treat and they told the story so well. It was a perfect example of people in a relatively weak role taking a strong opposition to a corporation and coming out on top by damaging their integrity. Seeing all the steps a corporation take to try to cover something like that up was very interesting to. Having them try to use authoritative, then monetary, then legal was revealing and slightly humorous.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
I was not completely convinced on the aspect of how corporations that break legal parameters should be punished. The movie seemed to gloss over the fact that every year, millions of dollars are given by companies for transgressions against the government due to treason or breaking laws. I would have liked to see a more in depth look at what should be done in those cases. I think that our debate in class had a good discussion on this topic, so I got a good answer from that at least.
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
The film best addresses, for the use of current events, the “99%”. That is to say, the 99% of Americans that make less money than the incredibly wealthy 1%. These people run the corporations that impact us in various negative ways and we do nothing about it. This film helped
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I think that the movie could have been much more focused. It moved on from chapter to chapter where any one of those segments could have been expanded into a movie of its own. While this would have increased environmental education, it may not have had the sample impact as the many shallow, but broad topics had. I would keep the movie the same.
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
All of these problems could be solved if people became more involved. After all, the companies are our own creation. Legal regulation and a focus on community would increase the good of a corporation while limiting the bad. Transparency would also help out in this instance. Another way that problems could be solved is for more CEO’s to have more epiphanies and make their companies more sustainable. I loved the addition of the converted CEO in the film and thought that it was a very powerful image that perhaps should have been more focused on.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
This film compelled me to seek out more information on the IBM Nazi scandal since I had never heard of it and it seems like it should be more widely known. In addition, I also wanted to find out more about the actual conditions of factory workers that make the product that corporations sell to us everyday.
Title: The Corporation
Director: Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott
Release Year: 2003
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The main argument of the film is those corporations negatively affect your life in various ways.
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
The information is given by a series of interviews going from professionals in academic fields, economists, business executives, and, my personal favorite, the corporation “spy”.
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational?
Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?
This movie encompasses all of the topics above. This is accomplished by being very long, but also focused in the interviews. Obviously, the editor should get some sort of prize.
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I think that the most compelling part of the film, and I believe that the makers of the film agree with the amount of time focused on this single topic, was the milk scandal at fox news. Having the “inside scoop” with the reporters involved was a rare treat and they told the story so well. It was a perfect example of people in a relatively weak role taking a strong opposition to a corporation and coming out on top by damaging their integrity. Seeing all the steps a corporation take to try to cover something like that up was very interesting to. Having them try to use authoritative, then monetary, then legal was revealing and slightly humorous.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
I was not completely convinced on the aspect of how corporations that break legal parameters should be punished. The movie seemed to gloss over the fact that every year, millions of dollars are given by companies for transgressions against the government due to treason or breaking laws. I would have liked to see a more in depth look at what should be done in those cases. I think that our debate in class had a good discussion on this topic, so I got a good answer from that at least.
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
The film best addresses, for the use of current events, the “99%”. That is to say, the 99% of Americans that make less money than the incredibly wealthy 1%. These people run the corporations that impact us in various negative ways and we do nothing about it. This film helped
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I think that the movie could have been much more focused. It moved on from chapter to chapter where any one of those segments could have been expanded into a movie of its own. While this would have increased environmental education, it may not have had the sample impact as the many shallow, but broad topics had. I would keep the movie the same.
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
All of these problems could be solved if people became more involved. After all, the companies are our own creation. Legal regulation and a focus on community would increase the good of a corporation while limiting the bad. Transparency would also help out in this instance. Another way that problems could be solved is for more CEO’s to have more epiphanies and make their companies more sustainable. I loved the addition of the converted CEO in the film and thought that it was a very powerful image that perhaps should have been more focused on.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
This film compelled me to seek out more information on the IBM Nazi scandal since I had never heard of it and it seems like it should be more widely known. In addition, I also wanted to find out more about the actual conditions of factory workers that make the product that corporations sell to us everyday.
IBM Scandal: http://news.cnet.com/2009-1082-269157.html
Factory Conditions: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/15/AR2006061501898.html